# Constitutional Rights: Do they apply to everyone inside the USA or just citizens? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 30, 2019, 5:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutional-rights-do-they-apply-to-everyone-inside-the-usa-or-just-citizens/841030 "2019-09-30T05:35:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![SamuelA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c77e96/32.png) [@SamuelA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SamuelA)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2019, 5:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutional-rights-do-they-apply-to-everyone-inside-the-usa-or-just-citizens/841030/1 "2019-09-30T05:35:05Z")
If the answer is “everyone within the bounds of the USA”, a. Do unwanted visitors also have Constitutional Rights? (such as illegal immigrants who gained access by force or deception) b. What about invading armies (organized armed soldiers who carry weapons. Last seen in ww2). Do they get Constitutional Rights? Source for this question: [City Argues Immigrant Killed by Police Has No Constitutional Rights](https://www.insider.com/ismael-lopez-undocumented-immigrant-constitutional-rights-2019-9) ---
**Author:** ![mjmlabs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mjmlabs/32/69_2.png) [@mjmlabs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mjmlabs)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2019, 5:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutional-rights-do-they-apply-to-everyone-inside-the-usa-or-just-citizens/841030/2 "2019-09-30T05:57:53Z")
From [The Constitutional Rights of Noncitizens | Learn Liberty](https://www.learnliberty.org/blog/t-he-constitutional-rights-of-noncitizens/) : > [@](#): > > Immigration restrictionists sometimes claim that noncitizens have no rights under the Constitution, and that the US government is therefore free to deal with them in whatever way it wants. At least as a general rule, this claim is simply false. > > Noncitizens undeniably have a wide range of rights under the Constitution. Indeed, within the borders of the United States, they have most of the same rights as citizens do, and longstanding Supreme Court precedent bans most state laws discriminating against noncitizens. There is little if any serious controversy among experts over this matter. > [@](#): > > The Constitution reserves a few rights for citizens alone. Most notably, the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV, Section 2, and the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment both protect the “privileges” and “immunities” of US citizens against various types of interference by state governments. > > \ > > That a few constitutional rights may be specifically reserved to citizens underscores the broader principle that the vast majority are not. There would be no need to specify such a reservation if the Constitution had a default rule limiting rights to citizens. > > In reality, the vast majority of rights outlined in the Constitution are phrased as general limitations on government power, not special protections for a specific class of people — be they citizens or some other group. > > Not only does the Constitution grant noncitizens most of the same rights as citizens, but longstanding Supreme Court precedent also forbids many state laws discriminating against aliens. In cases such as _Bernal v. Fainter_ (1984), the court has ruled that laws discriminating on the basis of alienage are subject to “strict scrutiny” — that is, they will be struck down unless the government can prove that they are “narrowly tailored” to the promotion of a “compelling state interest.” From OP’s cite: > [@](#): > > “Ismael Lopez may have been a person on American soil but he was not one of the ‘We, the People of the United States’ entitled to the civil rights invoked in this lawsuit,” attorney Katherine Kerby wrote. “Ismael Lopez had insufficient connections with the United States of the type, dignity, and caliber required to attain standing for Fourth or Fourteenth Amendment protection.” > > In fact, immigrants — both documented and undocumented — are protected by the Constitution, as is anyone on US soil. > > The Supreme Court has affirmed these protections before, such as in the landmark 1982 case _Plyler v. Doe_, which held that immigrant children are protected under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and therefore can’t be barred from attending public schools. ---
**Author:** ![l0k1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/bb73d2/32.png) [@l0k1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/l0k1)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2019, 11:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutional-rights-do-they-apply-to-everyone-inside-the-usa-or-just-citizens/841030/3 "2019-09-30T11:40:27Z")
The rights laid out by the Constitution are limits to the power of the federal government. Those limits apply to the government. It we say that only citizens have the right to due process, then there is nothing to stop the government from denying someone’s citizenship, depriving them of due process, and executing them. Citizens only have rights if the government’s power is limited. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2019, 11:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutional-rights-do-they-apply-to-everyone-inside-the-usa-or-just-citizens/841030/4 "2019-09-30T11:54:28Z")
In Mississippi, a municipality is arguing that an undocumented immigrant who was killed when the cops burst into the wrong house and shot him in the back of the head has no constitutional rights. > **[An undocumented man was killed when cops went to the wrong home. The city...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/09/27/ismael-lopez-southaven-mississippi-police-shooting-constitution/)** > > “We’re stunned that someone put this in writing,” Murray Wells, an attorney representing Ismael Lopez’s estate, told reporters at a Thursday news conference. ---
**Author:** ![Munch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/munch/32/5281_2.png) [@Munch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Munch)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2019, 1:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutional-rights-do-they-apply-to-everyone-inside-the-usa-or-just-citizens/841030/5 "2019-09-30T13:34:40Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > In Mississippi, a municipality is arguing that an undocumented immigrant who was killed when the cops burst into the wrong house and shot him in the back of the head has no constitutional rights. > > [https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/09/27/ismael-lopez-southaven-mississippi-police-shooting-constitution](https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/09/27/ismael-lopez-southaven-mississippi-police-shooting-constitution) Was reading the OP and the provided link that difficult of a task? ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2019, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutional-rights-do-they-apply-to-everyone-inside-the-usa-or-just-citizens/841030/6 "2019-09-30T14:00:24Z")
I was curious what sort of attorney would make such an absurd argument. I have found that it is the type of attorney who has this type of website to drum up business. [http://www.kerbylaw.com](http://www.kerbylaw.com) ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2019, 2:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutional-rights-do-they-apply-to-everyone-inside-the-usa-or-just-citizens/841030/7 "2019-09-30T14:02:59Z")
The answer, as always, is “it depends.” Noncitizens have most of the same rights as citizens. Obviously, we\* can’t vote, or hold most public offices, or become president even after attaining citizenship, but those are exceptions. However, SCOTUS has consistently held that the political branches (Congress and the POTUS) have broad authority over foreign policy and national security, and has deemed immigration to fall within those spheres. So the courts defer to the political branches on most immigration issues. Resultantly, many constitutional protections are [limited](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=882079) for immigrants [when it comes to their status](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=882079) as immigrants ( **mjmlab** ’s link refers to this doctrine as the “plenary power” doctrine). That is not true of state and local governments, and there is absolutely no legal support for the argument that a local law enforcement agency can shoot an undocumented worker in the head because the Fourth Amendment doesn’t apply. I am not sure that is the exact argument actually being made; the reporting on the Lopez case provides only snippets without the full context. ---
**Author:** ![Isosleepy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/isosleepy/32/479_2.png) [@Isosleepy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Isosleepy)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2019, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutional-rights-do-they-apply-to-everyone-inside-the-usa-or-just-citizens/841030/8 "2019-09-30T14:27:55Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > I was curious what sort of attorney would make such an absurd argument. I have found that it is the type of attorney who has this type of website to drum up business. > > [http://www.kerbylaw.com](http://www.kerbylaw.com) Ugh. Having a site design like that violates _my_ VIII amendment rights. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2019, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutional-rights-do-they-apply-to-everyone-inside-the-usa-or-just-citizens/841030/9 "2019-09-30T16:29:33Z")
As for the OP’s b), I would assume that enemy soldiers’ rights are dictated by the Geneva Convention, which were applied to the many prisoners of war housed in the U.S. Trying to apply rights to an invading army before they are captured is obviously meaningless. I have no idea what the OP means by invading armies carrying weapons in WWII. A small number of German spies were caught trying to infiltrate, but by definition, spies out of uniform are not soldiers. They are covered by the Espionage Act of 1917, and [first amendment speech does not apply](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917). At the same time, U.S. soldiers are tried according to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which has its own set of rules and procedures. ---
**Author:** ![l0k1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/bb73d2/32.png) [@l0k1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/l0k1)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2019, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutional-rights-do-they-apply-to-everyone-inside-the-usa-or-just-citizens/841030/10 "2019-09-30T16:53:01Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > I have no idea what the OP means by invading armies carrying weapons in WWII. A small number of German spies were caught trying to infiltrate, but by definition, spies out of uniform are not soldiers. They are covered by the Espionage Act of 1917, and [first amendment speech does not apply](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917). At the same time, U.S. soldiers are tried according to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which has its own set of rules and procedures. Just a guess, but there were pilots that crashed and were eventually captured during the battle of Pearl Harbor. Also, Japan occupied two Aleutian Islands during the war. I’m not sure if the Aleuts knew they were American at the time. As both of these happened in territories and not in states, I can see overlooking them as instances of one imperial force replacing another. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2019, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutional-rights-do-they-apply-to-everyone-inside-the-usa-or-just-citizens/841030/11 "2019-09-30T17:22:57Z")
This is a deep and somewhat murky part of the law. I believe that Hawaii and Alaska were incorporated territories during WWII. That’s an important distinction, because unincorporated territories, such as Puerto Rico, are not entitled to full constitutional rights. I’ll let SamuelA define what he meant, rather than trying to guess. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2019, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutional-rights-do-they-apply-to-everyone-inside-the-usa-or-just-citizens/841030/12 "2019-09-30T18:10:06Z")
> [@l0k1](#): > > Just a guess, but there were pilots that crashed and were eventually captured during the battle of Pearl Harbor. Also, Japan occupied two Aleutian Islands during the war. I’m not sure if the Aleuts knew they were American at the time. One could argue POWs were treated in accordance with the Constitution, anyway. They were treated humanely, and were incarcerated after a form of “due process” - it wasn’t the kind you’d process a car thief through, but identifying a man as an enemy soldier and then detaining him in accordance with the Geneva Convention is due process of a sort. ---
**Author:** ![OldGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/3bc359/32.png) [@OldGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OldGuy)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2019, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutional-rights-do-they-apply-to-everyone-inside-the-usa-or-just-citizens/841030/13 "2019-09-30T18:18:33Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > because unincorporated territories, such as Puerto Rico, are not entitled to full constitutional rights. Is this really what you meant to say? Does it mean Puerto Rico can adopt some laws that would be (federally) unconstitutional? Certainly Puerto Ricans are citizens and entitled to all Constitutional rights when in one of the 50 states. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2019, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutional-rights-do-they-apply-to-everyone-inside-the-usa-or-just-citizens/841030/14 "2019-09-30T18:39:37Z")
> [@OldGuy](#): > > Is this really what you meant to say? Does it mean Puerto Rico can adopt some laws that would be (federally) unconstitutional? Certainly Puerto Ricans are citizens and entitled to all Constitutional rights when in one of the 50 states. That didn’t make sense to me either. I always thought the Constitution applied to the territories just as much as the states. I don’t think there’s a question that the Constitutional rights apply to everyone in the US. If a Canadian in the US is charged with a crime, he has the same Miranda rights and right to trial by jury and a court-appointed lawyer as anyone else. If they did not, then any non-citizen could be jailed without cause and imprisoned indefinitely without due process. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2019, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutional-rights-do-they-apply-to-everyone-inside-the-usa-or-just-citizens/841030/15 "2019-09-30T18:59:59Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > One could argue POWs were treated in accordance with the Constitution, anyway. They were treated humanely, and were incarcerated after a form of “due process” - it wasn’t the kind you’d process a car thief through, but identifying a man as an enemy soldier and then detaining him in accordance with the Geneva Convention is due process of a sort. Plus the Constitution explicitly provides for Congress to make rules concerning captures on land and water. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2019, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutional-rights-do-they-apply-to-everyone-inside-the-usa-or-just-citizens/841030/16 "2019-09-30T19:27:57Z")
> [@OldGuy](#): > > Is this really what you meant to say? Does it mean Puerto Rico can adopt some laws that would be (federally) unconstitutional? Certainly Puerto Ricans are citizens and entitled to all Constitutional rights when in one of the 50 states. After the Spanish-American war, there was a series of court cases that dealt with this issue. They are called the “insular cases” because they dealt with the new territory the US acquired from Spain, which were islands, like Puerto Rico and the Philippines. The issue was whether he US Constitution fully applies in the territories. The Supreme Court held that the Constitution does not fully apply. It drew a distinction between incorporated territories, like the territories in the continental US, which were on the road to statehood, and unincorporated territories, the conquered islands, which were not. The US Constitution therefore doesn’t fully apply in Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa and any other little bits of the US empire. See the wiki article on it: > **[Insular Cases](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insular_Cases)** > > The Insular Cases are a series of opinions by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1901 about the status of U.S. territories acquired in the Spanish–American War. Some scholars also include cases regarding territorial status decided up until 1914, and others include related cases as late as 1979. > The term "insular" signifies that the territories were islands administered by the War Department's Bureau of Insular Affairs. Today, the categorizations and implications put forth by the Insula ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2019, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutional-rights-do-they-apply-to-everyone-inside-the-usa-or-just-citizens/841030/17 "2019-09-30T19:28:59Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > That didn’t make sense to me either. I always thought the Constitution applied to the territories just as much as the states. > > I don’t think there’s a question that the Constitutional rights apply to everyone in the US. If a Canadian in the US is charged with a crime, he has the same Miranda rights and right to trial by jury and a court-appointed lawyer as anyone else. If they did not, then any non-citizen could be jailed without cause and imprisoned indefinitely without due process. Or just shot on sight. ---
**Author:** ![SamuelA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c77e96/32.png) [@SamuelA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SamuelA)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2019, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutional-rights-do-they-apply-to-everyone-inside-the-usa-or-just-citizens/841030/18 "2019-09-30T20:04:26Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > I’ll let SamuelA define what he meant, rather than trying to guess. I meant at the instant the u boat soldiers came ashore, but before they changed clothes and buried their uniforms, they were an invading army. A really small one. And I just wondered which Constitutional rights applied. Also some conservatives see an army of illegal migrants who broke in with force or deceit (cutting fences or sneaking) as Invaders, though the difference is they are each individually doing this or in relatively small family units. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2019, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutional-rights-do-they-apply-to-everyone-inside-the-usa-or-just-citizens/841030/19 "2019-10-01T14:07:51Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > That didn’t make sense to me either. I always thought the Constitution applied to the territories just as much as the states. It applies to citizens of the territories, but not to the territories themselves, except to the extent that Congress chooses. So Puerto Ricans are guaranteed a trial by jury when they are in the mainland U.S., but they are not guaranteed a trial by jury _in Puerto Rico_ (except to the extent that Puerto Rico’s own constitution guarantees one). ---
**Author:** ![BrianDime](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ad7895/32.png) [@BrianDime](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrianDime)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2019, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutional-rights-do-they-apply-to-everyone-inside-the-usa-or-just-citizens/841030/20 "2019-10-01T17:56:16Z")
My understanding was that the rights enumerated in the constitution were inherent in the nature of man, rather than being granted by any document. In this light, citizens of China or wherever are entitled to all the rights that Americans are (other than the specific exclusion noted by previous posters) and it’s just their government’s refusal to protect/support those rights that prevents them from exercising those rights. By this, it would stand to reason that when anyone comes under the control/protection of the US Government, their existing rights should instantly be recognized and protected by the US government, right? [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutional-rights-do-they-apply-to-everyone-inside-the-usa-or-just-citizens/841030.md?page=2)